Leave a comment

Comments 3

Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong cartesiandaemon August 16 2017, 12:00:53 UTC
It's weird how accurate that is. Of course, thinking about it, when *I* evaluate maths news, my heuristic is something like:

* If it's published in a reputable maths journal, or published to arxiv with a provisional acceptance to a journal, or by a reputable mathematician, the actual maths is usually correct.
* If a news article states the importance of a result they are usually wrong; the exceptions are quotes from reputable mathematicians, or long explanations of how important the problem is.
* If it's genuinely groundbreaking, I won't hear about it from a press release, but from somewhere like Scott's blog :)

Reply


cartesiandaemon August 16 2017, 12:07:06 UTC
"Researchers found the more intelligent people were more likely to guess the second part of a psychological study was secretly related to the first half and nothing to do with what it was ostensibly about."

I hope that's not the case but I always worry about it when I hear about experiments :)

Reply


mlknchz August 16 2017, 15:49:20 UTC
Of course, I also believe the hammer and sickle is not covered by freedom of speech

Reply


Leave a comment

Up